State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Rajendra Panditrao Chandwadkar vs Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Satara & Ors. on 1 December, 2011
20/10/2011
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/05/2168
(Arisen out of Order Dated
06/10/2005 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/05/30 of District Satara)
1.
Shri. Rajendra Panditrao Chandwadkar
R/o.
691, Ravivar Peth, Nasik,
District Nasik.
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1.
Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Satara
179,
Bhavani Peth, Satara
Maharashtra
2.
Mahammad Shafi Abbas Bagwan
Special
Recovery Officer, Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Satara, 179, Bhavani Peth,
Satara.
Maharashtra
3.
District Dy. Registrar, Cop Operative Society, Satara
Prathamik Shikshak Bank
Building, 2nd floor, Powai
Naka, Satara
Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble
Mr. P.N. Kashalkar PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member PRESENT:
None present.
O R D E R Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar Honble Presiding Judicial Member:(1)
This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant whose complaint has was dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara by its judgement in Consumer Complaint No.30/2004 dated 06.02.2005.(2)
Consumer complaint was filed by the Appellant against Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mohammad Shafi Abbas bagwan, Special Recovery Officer of Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Satara. His contention was that Opponent No.1 Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.had given certain loan amount to Mr.Umesh Madhavrao Thombare.
For this loan amount Mr.Madhavrao Krishnaji Thombare and Mr.Dinesh Madhavrao Thombare stood as guarantors.
By way of security City Survey No.16, Malhar Peth, Satara to the extent of 1/2 share of Madhavrao Thombare was mortgaged to secure the loan. This was ancestral property Madhavrao Thombare in which Smt.Ranjana Madhavrao Thombare, Dinesh Madhavrao Thombare, Umesh Madhavrao Thombare, Yogesh Madhavrao Thombare and Kum.Swati Madhavrao Thombare had interest by birth. While mortgaging this ancestral property Smt.Ranjana Madhavrao Thombare, Yogesh Madhavrao Thombare and Kum.Swati Madhavrao Thombare had not given any consent. When the loan was not repaid by Umesh Thombare, the Opponent No.1 Bank procured certificate under section 101 of the Co-operative Societies Act to recover the unpaid dues from the borrower and certificate was also issued against Madhavrao Thombare and Dinesh Thombare, since they were sureties to the said loan.
Accordingly, Original Opponent No.2 sent recovery officer to hold auction. In the auction this Complainant purchased the property. He deposited the auction money. However on 10.07.2004 he learnt from the public notice published in Dainik Pudhari that the auction would be hit by the fact that Smt.Ranjana Madhavrao Thombare, Yogesh Madhavrao Thombare and Kum.Swati Madhavrao Thombare who were having interest in the ancestral property of Madhavrao Thombare had not given consent for mortgage. Before this auction was made, obviously Umesh Madhavrao Thombare, one of the heirs who was having interest by birth had filed dispute before the Co-operative Court, Satara on 15.03.2004 vide Suit No.681/2004 and this filing of dispute was hit from holding auction for the said loan. Likewise other Co-sharers Smt.Ranjana Madhavrao Thombare, Yogesh Madhavrao Thombare and Kum.Swati Madhavrao Thombare had also taken objection on 03.07.2004 to the public auction and at the instance of Opponent No.1 auction was sanctioned for `6,65,000/- out of which amount of `1,00,000/- was paid on 15.07.2004 by the Complainant and another `5,65,000/- was paid with the Bank on 03.07.2004 and on 13.08.2004 he had deposited `46,550/- towards the stamp duty with the Opponent No.2. According to Complainant before holding auction the Opponents should have informed him about the interest of other joint sharers and filing of dispute by some of the Co-sharers in the Co-operative Court. But, concealing this fact he was persuaded to deposit amount of `7,11,550/- by Opponents in Opponent No.1 Bank. Thereafter, Yogesh Thombare, one of the co-sharers of the ancestral property had filed Suit No.305/2004 on 09.08.2004 in Civil Court, Satara in which present Appellant/original Complainant was made Defendant and Court had issued injunction order against the auction sale held by Special Recovery Officer. On finding that for all these grounds the Complainant could not get possession, he asked for refund of all the monies from Opponent No.1 but Opponent No.1 did not refund the amount, Opponent No.2 had committed a lot of mistakes in holding auction and ultimately Opponent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to refund amount to the Complainant/Appellant on 16.11.2004 after deducting amount spent over public auction held by Opponent Nos.1 and 2.
Opponent Nos.1 and 2 did not refund the amount hence, Complainant made complaint before the Opponent No.3, who directed Opponent No.2 Special Recovery Officer to refund all the amount except `5,000/-. Ultimately on 14.01.2004 the amount was paid to the Complainant by Opponent No.2 as directed by Opponent No.3 after deducting `5,000/-.
Against this deduction he filed consumer complaint involving the Bank, Recovery Officer and District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society, Satara as Opponents and claimed amount of `93,325/- with interest at the Bank rate and also sought some amount of compensation and costs.
(3)After considering the defense raised by the parties the District Forum clearly held that the proceedings taken out by Opponent No.2 for holding public auction in terms of certificate issued by Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under section 101, difficulties in holding public auction because of concealment of some interest of co-sharers, pendency of civil suit etc. are as such that there cannot be a consumer dispute in respect thereof.
After the Complainant/appellant was aggrieved by the fact that Opponent No.3 had directed Opponent Nos.1 and 2 to refund all the monies of the Complainant except `5,000/-, he should have gone in appeal before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune. Instead of doing so, the Complainant preferred to file consumer dispute when no consumer dispute was involved. In the circumstances, the District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved by this dismissal the Complainant has filed this appeal.
(4)This appeal was filed in 2005 and after filing of this appeal for the last 6 years the Appellant did not bother even to take first order from this Commission. So, this appeal was lying unattended in the cupboard of this Commission. As per policy of this Commission this appeal was placed before us for disposal on 16th September, 2011. On which date on finding that both the parties were absent, we directed office to issue intimation by ordinary post to both the parties and the matter was adjourned to today. On 03.11.2011 office has sent notice to both the parties, but Appellant as well as Respondents, are absent. We, therefore, perused the impugned order passed by the District Forum and proceeded to decide appeal on merit.
(5)We are finding that the order passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint is just and proper and it is sustainable in law. There was no consumer dispute involved in this complaint. He wanted to challenge certain orders which were passed by Co-operative Court and some orders which were passed by the Civil Court of Satara. He also wanted to challenge the order passed by the Opponent No.3, who directed Opponent Nos.1 and 2 to refund the amount after deducting `5,000/- and which accordingly was deducted by the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 and the balance amount was paid to the Complainant. So, Complainant received back all the amounts except `5000/-. In terms of said order, the Respondent No.3 has not committed any mistake. In fact, for any error committed by Opponent No.3, Appellant should have knocked the doors of the Joint Commissioner, Co-operative Societies by filing necessary proceeding. Instead of doing so, he preferred to file consumer complaint. The District Forum, in our view, rightly dismissed the complaint by passing detailed order. We fully agree with the facts stated, reasoning given by the District Forum while dismissing the complaint. We, therefore, confirm the said findings and hold that there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the original Complainant. Hence, we pass the following order.
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 1st December, 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member ep